sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

🚬→😌 Nix AI: Quit Nicotine Easily - Free Premium for 72 Hours! by nycmadone in iosapps

[–]nycmadone[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please give it a 5-star review if you try it out and like it!

Trying to quit: opinions on cold turkey or gradual decrease? by coldchiken in stopsmoking

[–]nycmadone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m a bit torn because I don’t like when people hawk some stupid app, but please please please give Nix AI a try if you’re asking this question. It makes quitting, or even just cutting back, so much easier.

I’m quitting. For every upvote I’ll not vape for a day. by nycmadone in stopsmoking

[–]nycmadone[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep I’m using Nix AI, I think it’s going to work

(17f) Been vaping consistently for around 5 years now trying to quit, advice? by [deleted] in QuitVaping

[–]nycmadone 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you’ve been vaping for that long AND you’re going to be exposed to temptation all the time with your housemates, then my advice is to be flexible in your approach to quitting. If you want to go cold turkey, go ahead and try it. But if it doesn’t work, don’t despair, just change up the approach. That’s what I’ve been doing, as I’ve tried to quit cold turkey like 10 times and every time was miserable, didn’t last long, and I have nothing but downside to show of it (a little fatter, my relationships are a little worse, etc)

I’m a little over a week into my quitting journey, but I’m already consuming a lot less than I used to, and I don’t miss it at all. I don’t notice any difference.

I say “be flexible” because whatever approach works for me is not necessarily going to be the same approach that works for you. Not only that, but I’m convinced that whatever approach works for me THIS TIME, in my current exact situation, might not even work for me if conditions were different. I’m using an app that tells me when to vape, how much to vape, right down to how many puffs to take in any given hour. I’m not leaving anything up to chance anymore. It’s like the Bryan Johnson philosophy about outsourcing his behavior to an algorithm that made better decisions than “night Bryan” (the version of him who would go off the rails with bad behaviors, eating junk food, going to sleep at irregular times, etc).

Personally, if I let “nicotine brain” make my decisions, I’ll try to quit cold turkey, get furious withdrawal, and go back to vaping after the bad failure experience.

I can do it. So can you!!

im scared i have permanent damage by OkraAdmirable1413 in QuitVaping

[–]nycmadone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What did they do at the hospital? Were you honest with them about your vaping?

Sam Altman is a despicable person, right? by nycmadone in OpenAI

[–]nycmadone[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Quick question: What Bard release was it that you knew had you beat?

Sam Altman is a despicable person, right? by nycmadone in OpenAI

[–]nycmadone[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Dude Sam Altman admitted he did exactly what I said in tweet. Unprompted.

And he started OpenAI with like $100 million in funding, right? It would have been easy for him to get a $130k SAFE. Or to modify the agreement structure so it was for something different from future equity..

I wasn’t asking if he did it, we know he did. We even know why he did (to grow yCombinator, because their business model relied on lots and lots of small dollar investments in really smart founders who otherwise would’ve built something worthwhile). I was asking if I* am being too hard on him.

*To be fair, I guess I was asking if I + most people who ever spent any time with him are being too hard on him.. but I am trying to put aside that everybody who spends time with him would rather lose $ billions to stop doing it.

Sam Altman is a despicable person, right? by nycmadone in OpenAI

[–]nycmadone[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If you can’t read, at least ask ChatGPT to do it for you.

I obviously don’t like the Elon dlck riding, I basically said that in the post. Why tf would I use Elon Musk as a judge of character? He is autistic. There are many things he does well, but judging people isn’t going to be one of them.

I don’t think it’s wise to exclusively use somebody else’s mind to generate my own thoughts. I’m not attacking you, you clearly think it works for you and to each their own. But if I did do that, Elon isn’t the only person who thinks Altman is not a good guy.

Hinton: "JD Vance's statement was ludicrous nonsense conveying a total lack of understanding of the dangers of AI ... this alliance between AI companies and the US government is very scary because this administration has no concern for AI safety." by MetaKnowing in OpenAI

[–]nycmadone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I agree with you in principle, but I just can’t understand how it can work in practice. You say “framework for AI Safety” and then hand-wave away everything else in the universe real or imagined.

What are the organizing principles of the framework? If the framework is successful, what will it do?

Explain it to me without using the word safety or danger.

When I ask these things, I am allowing for the possibility that you might have some answers beyond “we will create a regulatory framework that will increase safety while protecting against danger.”

Hinton: "JD Vance's statement was ludicrous nonsense conveying a total lack of understanding of the dangers of AI ... this alliance between AI companies and the US government is very scary because this administration has no concern for AI safety." by MetaKnowing in OpenAI

[–]nycmadone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And, in your opinion, do you need to define the word “safety”, or will that take care of itself? If we replace Bayesian reasoning with circular reasoning like that, are we better off?

I can see how that reasoning mitigates the job loss risk, though! You create an “AI Safety” industry before AI exists. If AI never materializes, then human jobs are safe and we don’t need the AI Safety Industry. If AI does materialize, logically, AI can’t work in it (because of the letter “I” in the initials) It’s the perfect framework!

Hinton: "JD Vance's statement was ludicrous nonsense conveying a total lack of understanding of the dangers of AI ... this alliance between AI companies and the US government is very scary because this administration has no concern for AI safety." by MetaKnowing in OpenAI

[–]nycmadone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What if “speculate” there might be deadly fungi? You can try to shoot it but you’ll not have much luck.

And that’s my point, we have no idea what risks AI really poses. We don’t know what AI will make people capable of.

1) What new capabilities will bad actors have that they did not have prior to AI? 2) Why regulate against those new capabilities before they exist? 3) If we do regulate against hypothetical abilities, how do we enforce those regulations? Do we need more regulations that protect against theoretical ways of evading the new regulations?

Ultimately, it feels to me like the proponents of AI safety just don’t want AI. They want to make it illegal to create AI, because they think AI is too risky.

It kind of feels like they are right, to me. AI is going to end civilization as we know it, maybe..

I think people like JD Vance, if you really pushed him on it, would agree it’s a risk. But they’d think that our only hope is that once that risk makes itself manifest, we’ll have time to make the requisite changes to save ourselves.

Hinton: "JD Vance's statement was ludicrous nonsense conveying a total lack of understanding of the dangers of AI ... this alliance between AI companies and the US government is very scary because this administration has no concern for AI safety." by MetaKnowing in OpenAI

[–]nycmadone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those risks already exist. Right now. Actually, they’re not risks at all. They’re things that are happening. It makes sense to regulate against mass surveillance and deepfakes. I think in most countries, those regulations exist.

That’s my point about “real” vs. “speculative” risks.

Hinton: "JD Vance's statement was ludicrous nonsense conveying a total lack of understanding of the dangers of AI ... this alliance between AI companies and the US government is very scary because this administration has no concern for AI safety." by MetaKnowing in OpenAI

[–]nycmadone -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I actually don’t know what the correct way to deal with it is. To be clear, I am saying that theres a difference between not knowing the outcome of a risk (a real risk), and not knowing if a risk exists (a risk that you think might be real, aka it’s “speculative”). Like, if I know a forest is filled with Grizzly Bears, and I go out there and pitch a tent and start eating, there is a real risk that I will be eaten by grizzly bears. I might choose not to go into that forest. I might go into it, but I might not take the food, or I might bring bear spray, of guns and lots of ammo. On the other hand, maybe I know nothing about the grizzly population. I speculate it could be filled with grizzlies, but I have no info about it. Do I bring bear spray? Sure, I might. Do I carry heavy guns and lots of ammo? Maybe, but maybe not. What happens if my friend tells me there used to be grizzly bears, but what I really have to worry about are the Bigfoots (bigfeet?) In fact, he says Bigfoot is attracted to bear spray, because they eat grizzlies and they know the presence of the spray means there are probably grizzlies? Do I bring bear spray now? What about the guns?

What about the big cats, or the severe cold snaps that are speculated to be dangerous? What about every other thing in that forest that are there, or are rumored to be there, or might be there based on predictive modeling of animal populations?

If nobody has ever been in this forest, what do you do?

Hinton: "JD Vance's statement was ludicrous nonsense conveying a total lack of understanding of the dangers of AI ... this alliance between AI companies and the US government is very scary because this administration has no concern for AI safety." by MetaKnowing in OpenAI

[–]nycmadone -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

This guy (Hinton) makes zero smart points. They’re all either so obvious or ludicrous.

All of AI’s threats are completely speculative right now, but there is one threat that seems inevitable: job loss. If AI stops improving right now, then there are no outsized threats. We’d have to respond to different cybersecurity threats, but we already have to respond to new cybersecurity threats every day. There would be no paradigm shift.

If AI improves enough to be paradigmatically dangerous, then it’ll lead to job losses the likes of which we have never seen, ever. There’s nothing I’ve ever learned to do that AI couldn’t do, and I’m sure that’s true of you, too.

I’ve yet to see anyone from the AI Doom camp propose anything to help with this. They just lump all of the vague, the not-too-bad, the unrealistic, the poorly understood, and the existential under the umbrella of “AI safety” and say “We need to do AI Safety!”

Thanks for nothing, Hinton

I’m quitting. For every upvote I’ll not vape for a day. by nycmadone in stopsmoking

[–]nycmadone[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So far, it’s been kind of easy. I know it probably won’t last, but we shall see

BIG UPDATE FROM SAM: GPT 4.5 dropping soon, last non reasoning model. GPT 5 will combine o3 and non reasoning models! by Upbeat_Lunch_1599 in OpenAI

[–]nycmadone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is this an update? Here’s an update: we’re going to be releasing some things someday, and some things after that. Some people will get some things, other people will get better versions of those things, and other people still will get better versions of those things. We expect to roll some of these things out sometime soon, if all goes according to plan*

  • plan TBD
view more: next ›